Re: [SG] Firing & actions

>Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:53:24 -0800
>From: Jaime Tiampo <fugu@spikyfishthing.com>
>Subject: Re: [SG] Firing & actions
>
>
>You CAN do it according to the rules. Support weapons maybe fired
>separately, you just don't get the firepower die from the rifles. It
>does state this explicetly. If I had my book on hand I'd look it up.

Oh, I wasn't saying that you can't fire support weapons separately.

I was saying that you can fire *one* support weapon separately.  If you
want to fire two support weapons, they have to be firing together with
the
rifles of a squad, and you use their support die but the squad's
quality,
rifle impact, etc.

On page 37 in the book (now that I have it handy), in the section
labeled

"INDIVIDUAL FIRE OF SUPPORT WEAPONS"

it says

"When a player desires to fire a support weapon individually, rather
than
in support of general squad fire, he must use a separate ACTION to do
so."

(Author's emphasis)

I think that's pretty clear.  One action, one support weapon firing
individually.

So, in a squad of 10 troops, using ARs (FP2 each) with two SAWs (support
FPd8) and five troops with IAVRs (support FPd10), you could have a
single
fire action with d6 + d8 + d8 + d10 + d10 + d10 + d10 + d10.

If you saved IAVRs, then you could spend your second action and fire one
IAVR.

This is, of course, kind of goofy.  But that's how the rules are
written...

It's the same with GMS/P.  If you have two in a squad, you can't fire
them
together with a single action at a single target.  They require separate
actions also (p34.)

>We've always alowed multiple support weapons to fire at once. it's
>doesn't really make much sense that they can't. YOu don't look at a
>target and say, "Ok, Mike you shoot at it now, Brent, you shoot when
>Mike's done and pray that it doesn't shoot back while we wait."

Yeah, I know what you mean.  But that's how it was written.

Kind of arbitrary, like the "weapons can only fire once per activation"
rule.  I assume it was written that way for balance and playability.

Of course, you can always play it differently.	:)

>> > Having said that, I wouldn't allow it if I was
>> > refereeing a game.  One > figure, one shot per
>> activation, fullstop.
>> 
>> That's how I interpret the intent of the rules.
>
>I read it as, a weapon may fire once per activation. It does state
>weapon and not individual in the book.

The rule is really specific, and you're right, it says (again, author's
emphasis) "NO WEAPON MAY BE FIRED MORE THAN ONCE PER ACTIVATION".

So, if each trooper is issued two rifles, you're good to go...

I think the *intent*, as John said, is to limit exactly how much fire
can
be dumped out of a single squad per turn.  Again, these limits are
arbitrary, and I'm sure they're there for game balance and playability
reasons.  We place the limit that each figure can take one fire action
per
activation, and it works just fine.  If you play the "multiple weapons =
multiple shots per figure" idea, and everybody does it, you'll have a
much
more lethal game.  

But that's not necessarily a bad thing :)

"Err on the side of carnage", as we like to say...

>Also, I > wouldn't let a squad > have five IAVRs, but
>that's a matter of taste.  Lots > of IAVRs in one-off
> games leads to silliness like volleyfiring them. 
> Sure a squad might be > issued that many, but not
>likely for a single > firefight.  
>
>Actually, yes.  You very probably would be issued that
>many for a firefight, depending on different nation's
>doctrine.  And against heavy armor, they are supposed
>to be volley-fired.  

Fair enough.  Volley fire against heavy armour I can understand.  But
those
weapons are issued as anti-ARMOUR weapons.  They give the rifle squad
it's
anti-big-tough-things punch.  The example given in the original post was
about a squad volleying IAVRs at another infantry squad because they
were
in cover and rifle/SAW fire missed.

I don't buy it.  I think that's cheesy gaming.

In your average SG game, the scenarios are one-offs, so you (as the
player)
know you won't have to wait for resupply for an extra 6 hours while an
enemy mechanized battalion runs through your position.	You're just
worrying about the 20 minute firefight you're involved with, 'cause
that's
the extent of the game.  Having players use *all* their ordnance in a
single action - such as firing GMS/P against infantry squads because
your
rifles are *just out of range*, is in my book kinda cheesy.

We could take this one step further, and say "why not arm every figure
with
a SAW"?  That way, ignoring "campaign" type stuff like
logistics/resupply/realism, you get the best dice to throw...

It comes down to taste, really.

I think in one-off games, unless you're trying for a maximum-carnage
type
scenario, having high concentrations of IAVRs in infantry squads leads
to a
certain degree of silliness.

Adrian

Adrian Johnson
adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca

***************************************

To win one hundred victories in one
hundred battles is not the highest 
skill.	To subdue the enemy without
fighting is the highest skill.

Sun Tzu

(he wasn't a wargamer, obviously...  wouldn't that be just *boring*)